AmpedTraining Blog
2009 August 26 | 1 Comment »
By Matt
As in part 1 and part 2 of this little social experiment, I want to analyze some of the T-Logic that’s come out of the T-Muscle forums, in response to challenges made against the outrageous claims of their forthcoming “I, Bodybuilder” program.
The thread that was on-going was finally ground to a halt – posts from dissenting viewpoints stopped getting through the filter, allowing the Real T-Men time to revel in their stupidity.
I honestly never thought I’d see so many people that are not just dumb, but truly proud of being that way. This certainly isn’t a new phenomenon, and as much as I’ve been exposed to it, it really shouldn’t shock me – yet it still manages to do so.
Continue »
2009 August 24 | 9 Comments »
By Matt
Lately I’ve been pretty quiet with my hater posts. Most of my vitriol stays on the Monkey Island, which is probably for the best since it’s off the Google. On the flip of the coin, though, it’s a bad thing because there’s a lot of good righteous anger that probably should be known to the ‘net at large.
Today, I want to rant about this latest paragon of quasi-scientific supplement hustling that plays on the insecurities of males 16-30.
Continue »
2009 August 5 | 4 Comments »
By Matt
I complain a lot about people and workout programs. Specifically, I complain about how people look at programs. And diets, for that matter.
Most people go about it wrong-headed. They place emphasis on the actual protocol they’re following, as opposed to why that protocol is actually working.
Your workout and diet are not important. There, I said it.
Continue »
2009 July 12 | 5 Comments »
By Matt
“When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong.”
-Richard Dawkins
This is another one of my boring thinking-related posts which I know everyone loves so much. This time I want to talk about the fallacy of moderation, more commonly known as the Golden Mean. This comes about when you have two competing, and seemingly equal, points of view. Take for example the on-going “argument” between creationism and evolution, or Flat Earthers and people that pay attention.
Continue »
2009 February 16 | Comments Off
By Matt
I’d like to rant for a minute about who you listen to, and more specifically, why self-proclaimed experts are taken as experts.
Let me lecture you about the scientific method for a minute. Arguably the largest strength of research and science in general is transparency. When a researcher or team of researchers submits a paper for publication, it’s expected to meet certain standards. The experiment has to be detailed – the subjects, the methods used, the data gathered (and how it was gathered and interpreted), all of that. The authors then have to discuss the results, how they fit into (or conflict with) existing data, and so on. If the paper passes the requirements and the critical eye of other experts in the field, a process called peer review, then it’s accepted into the journal and we can consider it to be solid research.
Continue »
2009 January 23 | 1 Comment »
By Matt
To listen to some folks talk, nothing.
I’m not sure why people get it into their heads that personal opinions can trump information from qualified medical professionals. I know it’s all the rage these days to hate on science and people with that filthy education, but when you’re asking a personal trainer about things like adrenal dysfunction or what anti-depressants you should be taking, you’re in a whole new world of naivete.
I’ve said it before, and apparently I’ll have to keep on saying it until my fingers fall off: unless you’re actually doing controlled tests, you do not know your body. Saying that “research is bad so I’ll just do what I want” is pretty dumb in the best of circumstances; when you’re talking about a potentially critical matter of health, it crosses the lines from stupid to dangerous. I’ve already ranted about that lately, so it doesn’t really bear another lecture.
People really do boggle me at times with the lengths they’ll go to just to justify their own beliefs, regardless of any facts. It’s frustrating and sad at the same time.
All I can tell you is that if you’re ignoring medical advice and seeking to self-medicate because you “know your body”, then you’re doing yourself a major disservice. If you are seeking alternatives, which may well be an option mind you, a personal trainer is the last place to look for that information.
Score one more for the US culture of anti-intellectualism, I suppose.
2009 January 13 | 1 Comment »
By Matt
The title here is clear enough; how often have you heard someone say that you can find research to support any position?
In this post, I want to touch on why that’s not true.
The Abstract Isn’t The Study
It’s all too tempting to do a quick search on Pubmed, dig up some abstracts that seem to be agreeing with you, and use them as support in an argument.
Problem is, the abstract may or may not contain enough information to draw conclusions. An abstract is, by definition, a brief summary of an article that gives you the rundown. The abstract should tell you all the basics; what was being studied, how it was studied, the results of the experiment, and what conclusions can be drawn.
Depending on the scope and complexity of the research, an abstract may cover most of the relevant points, but it could just as easily hit only the high points. For this reason, having the full paper on hand is necessary if you really want to see what went on.
Why is this important? Because knowing who or what was being studied, the methods used for the experiment, how data was collected and analyzed, and what conclusions were drawn (and why) are all important when you want to understand research.
All too often, somebody will just read the conclusion of an abstract and assume that it backs him up, only to find out later that it actually says the exact opposite. If he’d bothered to actually look at the methods used and what the authors said about their conclusions, he’d have realized that just relying on the conclusion was being hasty.
Point being, you can’t jump to conclusions simply based on a few lines in an abstract. You have to evaluate the entire study, even understanding its limitations, before you can take any meaning from a piece of research.
More on interpreting research
2009 January 10 | Comments Off
By Matt
I thought this was a good read; I was (tangentially) involved in the referenced “debate” on T-nation, and had several of my own posts deleted. And no, contrary to popular opinion, I was actually being civil about it. They were deleting posts simply because an alleged “expert” was challenged.
Nothing like a supplement company passing itself off as a legitimate discussion group while enforcing constant censorship. This is a big reason why I won’t participate in boards like that; remember this whenever you see an argument quietly disappear. Intellectual dishonesty doesn’t begin to cover it.
At any rate, for those of you interested, this is worth the read:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/an-objective-comparison-of-chocolate-milk-and-surge-recovery.html
2009 January 2 | Comments Off
By Matt
So it seems I had more to talk about than I’d originally thought. What can I say, forums are a lot of inspiration.
This particular piece is still related to the last two. As you can probably tell by now, I’m big on being able to analyze and apply information. I think that’s the big thing that most fitness-seekers are missing.
Being able to discriminate and filter information is crucial, regardless of your goal. Doesn’t matter if you’re trying to build muscle, lose some fat, the generic ‘get in shape’, or what have you – there’s ways to go about things, and then there’s misinformation.
3. Evaluate information objectively, not by how you feel
I know that it’s the big thing today to be happy and trust your gut and all that. The modern world is a constant bombardment of messages telling you that you are special, that you have a voice and should let it be heard. This self-centered perception has given a lot of people the idea that the world is subjective – that you, too, can be an expert and have a worthy opinion on just about anything.
After all, you can go set up a blog or a Myspace page and suddenly you’re a celebrity. I mean, just look at where you’re reading this page to see that in effect. The problem is that people have yet to learn that simply because somebody has an opinion does not make it factual, accurate, or correct.
That’s that’s the media talking. Despite pop-culture portrayals, progress in science and technology is not made by maverick outsiders or rogue outcasts struggling to be accepted by a bunch of crusty old professors. It’s certainly not made by people completely uneducated on a topic that spend a few hours reading on Google.
Put simply, your feelings have no place here. If you are not rather highly educated on a subject, your opinion is really not relevant. I don’t say this to be insulting; I say it as a matter of pragmatism. If you’re not educated on a subject, what gives you the ability to talk about that subject with any authority?
If the scientific establishment was ruled by feelings, humanity would still be trying to cure diseases by letting out all that pesky demon-inhabited blood. Science is in place for a reason.
This is not meant to deflate your self-esteem or whatever. It’s meant to point out that just because you think, or you believe, or you feel something, that does not mean you are right. That does not mean you should tell other people what they should be doing. Most importantly, it does not mean you should ignore people that are better-informed and better educated – certainly not with the excuse that it’s ‘your opinion’.
Information is just information. Yes, it can be biased, but unless someone is being intellectually dishonest, information will usually stand on its own legs. Information is not something that can be reduced to a matter of opinion.
Gravity is not an opinion (though I’ve been waiting for somebody on a forum to make that case). Light is not an opinion. And so on.
Why then would any other structured scientific discipline be a matter of opinion?
Consider this when you’re choosing to accept or reject your sources.
